By the integration
of logic and fact in a way that is fundamental and complete in unity and
harmony, we can obtain, by deduction, Understanding of Reality. That is the
objective of Metaphysics. An example is
in that even the most subtle facts in logic can be extremely relevant to the
most "everyday" way of thinking about "everyday"
issues. It is a relevant aside, by the
say, that the fact that these subtleties exist "simply in the minds"
of those who think them is a strong argument that they existed before the fact
of being thought, because it turns out that these principles are metaphysically deductive.
Among these relevant
subtleties in logic there is the matter of where an issue exists in the form of
deciding between two or more equally possible means of categorizing of a
thing. It may be that they are very
distinct, such as the distinctions between aspects of an entity versus
different forms of entity, and even to the point that within one of those
categories may be many issues just as diverse as between the two categories
which are higher in order, and that this may go on ad infinitum.
There is a great
distinction between an attribute and a substance. An attribute is that which is rooted in a
substance but from which is distinct in being a mode
of that substance and not the substance in re
aeternalis . That is not
necessarily a feature of the way reality is in
itself, but it is a function of
how the human mind must experience it cognitively, and on some levels even
sensorially (e.g. pain and pleasure). We may, for example, attribute the same
quality as being rooted in essentially distinct substances. There is a big difference between things in themselves, which is called their essential distinctions. These are substantive
features, deeper than modalities, and are simply the principle elements of a
being's very existence while being nothing less nor more than the defining
features of that being's form. This collection of elements is included in what
is meant by the term "essence".
When the essences of
two entities may each hold the same attribute, that is not a surprise at all,
if only the essences of the two entities bear the same ontogeny, that is, have
a common metaphysical ancestor, the same lineage of substance. But if these beings
have opposing substances, this will make us wonder how a primal substance could
be in opposition with itself. Is it in a
state of poverty and cannot render the same peace to its progeny as it has in
itself as a fundamentum realis? IS
REALITY THAT POOR? Then wherefore the
wealth of Virtue? Is it merely a show
performed by despots?
But surely the
primal essence does not conflict with itself, and yet we may encounter beings
who bear all manner of resemblances to
one another in forma, but demonstrate
actions and qualities which may be found in one of these beings but not the other in every case. Sometimes it may be about matters which are
"worldly" and "material" as well as questions of attitude
about such matters, but then it may also pertain to the reflective
self-acculturation of individual and private personhood, a vocation of
perspective unique to each individual. When these are in fundamental
opposition, it begs the question of whether these beings are really of the same
kind at all. It is so radical of a departure from commonality.
The reason is that
if the world of facts is shared in common by both, and if the stated principles
of tradition and polity are the same, and also if in fact their bodily forms
and their actual conditions per specimen are the same, then it is a wonder that
identities could be formed in their personalities which are capable of forming
mutually destructive conditions on the basis that they see the world
differently. It makes no prima facie
sense. It makes sense only if we add
some additional cause for their conflict.
The cause may be
empirical. It may be that they are under
some sort of malevolent control by forces they do not understand which control
them behind the fault lines of their opposition. It may be that these are simply conditions
"of the human soul".
Regardless, these forces must be
in opposition in order for such overwhelming similar beings to bear such
antivalent relations to the point of extreme potentials for destruction of one
another and even both. It begs the
question of how fundamental that similitude really is.
That is why we can
understand that by appearances things may be extremely alike, but in substance
they can be no less different in direct proportion to those appearances of
sameness. That is why "as if" behaviors exist, this is why people's
behaviors are intelligible at all, and this is why there is evil in the world.
Because substances
may be FAKED in their appearance and presentation to the world of observers.
This is the basis of all fraud, all crime whatsoever. All wrongs committed, either through petty
and only slightly culpable negligence or
else to the point of the strongest and clearest
intent, and on all points in between. This is only possible because of
the presence of sensations which can be distorted, perceptions that can be
altered, and thoughts and feelings which can be conditioned. All of which is conducive to the engineering
of public norms through institutions in which people are perversely malconditioned
into trusting, believing and obeying.
But it seems that this lifestyle, one of slavish adherence to habitual
socializing forces, is the norm as accepted by human nature itself.
So in a world where
"everyone's human" (or is it the case?), we have people who may
appear quite the same as to all attributes, but in fact make entirely different
choices about how to live and how to live among others, and this such that
these decisions are absolutely
incompatible. Good people will not allow you to walk all over them and
humiliate them, neither outwardly nor inwardly. Evil people will willfully
attempt to do such things wherever they can get away with it. Good people are humane, evil people are
inhumane. Good people are honest and
truthful, evil people are liars and deceivers. So while outwardly they are the
same being, inwardly and in way s far more fundamental to being human in the fullest sense of the term, they
are absolutely different kinds of beings.
And that is what
morality is all about, the absolute distinction between Good and evil. These
categories are not invented out of thin air, they are not made up out of
obsessions, they are not proper targets of obsession. They are principles which reflect substantive
differences in beings, even to such a degree that they are different kinds of
beings no matter what other evidence to the
contrary, just so long as this difference in their being can be
determined to be in existence, as manifest by the fruit of their moral action
and inaction. Where these are different
in kind, they are only antivalent in kind, and it is a
difference which makes for the gravest of implications to consider and
judgments to make.
As these beings are so different in kind, and
yet as they appear so much the same outwardly, it is only a matter of time
before essence overrules accident, and all their outward bonds are broken and
all their inward integrity is manifest plainly, and in just such a way that
they will not abide each other outwardly, just as inwardly they never did. For
the logical reason that opposing substances cannot fundamentally agree,
therefore where they appear to, it is only superficial, and as a means to the
end of inevitable conflict. Just as
honest men cannot tell lies (or they're not honest), so dishonest men cannot
tell truths (or they're honest). But we
see honest men tell lies to their sworn enemies in order to defend greater
truths, and we see dishonest men tell truths to make their lies believable. Yet
the more fundamental and logical truth is the absolute foundation for the
relative distortions in appearances which manifest only in a conflict between
those absolutes, and hence depend upon them for their existence as effects
depend upon causes. In this case, contrary causes.
And that is an
empirical method of demonstrating a
logical tautological fact, which if were not possible (though empirical
evidence proves it it is possible), then
it would not be thinkable. But if it were even thinkable at all (even if no one
ever thought it), then it must be actual in reality, because the meaning of the
terms thought requires, by the nature of the terms, a world where such thought
is intelligible, and such a world must have
such antivalence within it or it would be unthinkable (for nature does
nothing in vain is the common notion here). THE
ONLY WAY THIS IS NOT TRUE IF THERE IS NO EVIL IN THE WORLD AT ALL, and so NEVER
COULD BE and NEVER WILL BE, and this IS THE WAY WHICH THE WORLD HAS RULED OUT
BY ITS MANIFEST ACTIONS THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND IN THE PRESENT! That world was not, and is not, but will be.
But this undermines
the worldly appearance concerning commonality of religion on a fundamental
level, as those who said The Good cannot produce evil willingly or wittingly,
then how could it have produced it at all unless 1)
accidentally or 2) by coercion or deception of another party! Yet in spite of
these facts, it seems unthinkable that Good had the power to do evil either.
And while the mystery of the evil will is mysterious indeed, it doesn't impinge
at all on the possibility that The Good has the ultimate power to destroy evil "for good and
forever", and that The Good will.
But while this is completely understood by some few, others seem oblivious to
its thinkability (being essentially different from those who can and especially
those who do; different in essence, and
belonging to essentially different origins, manifesting essentially different
worlds).
Those others are of
a different spiritual kind, per definitionem…
And since these are
on moral matters fundamental to existence itself, so their spiritual nature,
which is manifest by the thoughts and feelings on these matters, must also be
completely different in kind. And since the
one kind which is prevalent today, and which mostly always was, was the kind
which slaughtered the other kind at every opportunity, and yet the kind which
was slaughtered was never in such an evil bent, it shows both empirically that
they are and were different in kind (from the manifest hostility), and also, per deductionem, in that antivalent
diffferences in outward manifestations are the direct expressions of
substantive, inward and essential distinctions in kind in mutually direct
proportion as the appearances are the same and the actions are antivalent. And what could be more antivalent than if one
seeks utterly to destroy the other?
History shows that,
in this world unfortunately, the malevolent and hence the evil sort have the
upper hand. The forces of the
"demonic" are ascendant here, as all appearances are concerned, and
therefore, by deduction, as far as all substantive facts and essential truths
about the world would have it, as they express through these appearances in
antivalence to Truth and Justice.
This shows that
fundamentally different and yet fundamentally thinkable world conditions are
possible, and it shows which one in which we exist now. It shows also the logic by which the world
presents its norms, such that they are sustained by cultural inertia,
reinvigorated only by a highly-controlled supply of positive and negative
conditioning, and all of which is traced to tyrannies of conventional and
unconventional forms, of ancient and modern methodologies, and of blatant and
extremely real actuality. They are
manifest in mundi , they are not mere
ideas about the world. It is like this:
talking about great white sharks while swimming of the coast of Florida in an
area known to have frequent shark attacks.
So in this situation, the least one can do is express
one's true nature; the only question is "what is that nature,
essentially?" This will determine
only the form of the inevitable, but the fact will be in the same form every
time and every where. The form is a
dance of pretense of friendship from one side, a spurning of that fraud by the
other, and if the odds are in its favor a lashing out against the latter by the
former. But no matter how it appears to turn out, here in this material existence, in the actual and
eternal reality, where the consequences of such an antivalent distinction
between beings here will manifest there in perfected and completed form without
any distractions of false appearances, there will be destinies which by
definition are ultimate and eternal. Likewise, those destinies will be antivalent
in kind, suitable to the natures of their recipients.
Those involved with
covert surveillance/harassment of the Good and innocent, who attack them merely
because of their own ignorance or their culpability for intentional mischief
and aggression, including and especially those who utilize weapons in the form
of chemical and psychotronic weapons, especially those who do so covertly and
under false pretenses, are criminals anywhere the Honest and the Just
exist. And on the ultimate and
inevitable levels of these consequences, and on the basis if the facts and
natures involved, it is proper and fair in all lights to say to those fiends that:
"YOU
ARE DOOMED"
Q.E.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment